- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
A Truly Baffling Post on Clark and the Times Op-Ed Controversy
Here's a...well, like the title says, a truly baffling post on the recent Clark controversy. Stephen E. Sachs juxtaposes quotes from the relevant op-ed with other things Clark has said. I only read it once, but for the life of me I can't see the contradictions. Here's an example:
[Non-Times-Op-Ed Clark:] "I have always believed that before initiating military action, crucial tests must be met: For example, every diplomatic option should be explored and exhausted. We must do everything possible to gain international and domestic support. And there must be a realistic post-war plan."
[Sachs:] The Bush Administration failed every one of these tests.
[Times-Op-Ed-Clark:] American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.
Uh...look, this is getting really bizarre. Can anybody explain to me where the contradiction is here? In the first quote, Clark is setting out the conditions that must be met before military action should be taken. As Sachs notes, those conditions were not met. In the second quote, Clark is talking about something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. It's a different subject, see? If I'm not mistaken, he's saying that in Iraq, Americans and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. He also seems to be opining that, if the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five divisions, they certainly made the right call. Er, but as I've noted three times here now, 'if the choice is between A and B, then A was the right choice' doesn't mean that A was the right choice. As Clark has made clear, in this case the choice was not between A and B, but between A and B and a more reasonable C. C, the right choice, was not to attack. Which is, in effect, what he was indicating in the first bloody quote.
Look, if your doctor tells you 'Well, if you insist on smoking cigarettes, you should smoke light cigarettes' he is not telling you that you should smoke light cigarettes.
Sach's post continues in this vein, but I just don't have the heart to go through the rest of 'em like this. If you're interested, all you have to do is go read the quotes with even a moderate amount of care.
Christ, blogging is a waste of time.
A Truly Baffling Post on Clark and the Times Op-Ed Controversy
Here's a...well, like the title says, a truly baffling post on the recent Clark controversy. Stephen E. Sachs juxtaposes quotes from the relevant op-ed with other things Clark has said. I only read it once, but for the life of me I can't see the contradictions. Here's an example:
[Non-Times-Op-Ed Clark:] "I have always believed that before initiating military action, crucial tests must be met: For example, every diplomatic option should be explored and exhausted. We must do everything possible to gain international and domestic support. And there must be a realistic post-war plan."
[Sachs:] The Bush Administration failed every one of these tests.
[Times-Op-Ed-Clark:] American and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. If the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five, they certainly made the right call.
Uh...look, this is getting really bizarre. Can anybody explain to me where the contradiction is here? In the first quote, Clark is setting out the conditions that must be met before military action should be taken. As Sachs notes, those conditions were not met. In the second quote, Clark is talking about something ENTIRELY DIFFERENT. It's a different subject, see? If I'm not mistaken, he's saying that in Iraq, Americans and Brits, working together, produced a lean plan, using only about a third of the ground combat power of the Gulf War. He also seems to be opining that, if the alternative to attacking in March with the equivalent of four divisions was to wait until late April to attack with five divisions, they certainly made the right call. Er, but as I've noted three times here now, 'if the choice is between A and B, then A was the right choice' doesn't mean that A was the right choice. As Clark has made clear, in this case the choice was not between A and B, but between A and B and a more reasonable C. C, the right choice, was not to attack. Which is, in effect, what he was indicating in the first bloody quote.
Look, if your doctor tells you 'Well, if you insist on smoking cigarettes, you should smoke light cigarettes' he is not telling you that you should smoke light cigarettes.
Sach's post continues in this vein, but I just don't have the heart to go through the rest of 'em like this. If you're interested, all you have to do is go read the quotes with even a moderate amount of care.
Christ, blogging is a waste of time.
posted by Winston Smith at
9:33 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
Subscribe to Post Comments [Atom]
<< Home